Tribune Editorial: A long way from the Iowa campaign trail

Sunday

Jun 16, 2013 at 1:04 AMJun 16, 2013 at 1:12 AM

Years from now, when assessing Barack Obama's presidency, we will look back on what could have been. And this sense of regret or disappointment — that the hope and energy exhibited on the campaign trail could not be channeled into tangible improvements in the economic health and well-being of the country — will be attributed in part to the fact that Obama had to spend so much time and effort dealing with foreign affairs and terrorism.

Years from now, when assessing Barack Obama’s presidency, we will look back on what could have been. And this sense of regret or disappointment — that the hope and energy exhibited on the campaign trail could not be channeled into tangible improvements in the economic health and well-being of the country — will be attributed in part to the fact that Obama had to spend so much time and effort dealing with foreign affairs and terrorism.

Of course, we knew he would have to cope with Iraq and Afghanistan. Extricating ourselves from those complicated and sticky entanglements has been extremely difficult and time consuming, and the work probably won’t be done even after eight years in office.

But then there was Libya, and Iran, and North Korea. And there’s always Israel’s inherent border conflicts. Now comes Syria, which has used chemical weapons on its own people, forcing Obama’s hand to get more involved in that conflict.

The threat of terrorism, such a dark cloud over President George W. Bush’s tenure, has not dispersed during Obama’s time. The theory that Obama’s eloquence would somehow tame the terrorist beast has not proved true. On the contrary, terror returned to the homeland this year at the Boston Marathon.

And so, with so many global conflicts and terror threats, Obama has been put in the position of acting not all that differently than his predecessor when it comes to national security and defense. He has broken his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. He has deployed drones to bomb civilians. He has expanded state surveillance of his own people in hopes of catching the next terrorist bomber.

The vast global challenges Obama has faced as president are not what he — or we — really expected. Domestic affairs often seem to take a back seat at Obama’s White House, drawing complaints that the president has not taken a leadership role in the epic battles over health care reform, immigration reform and the like.

The criticism is valid. Obama has not, in fact, always been fully engaged with important domestic issues such as creating jobs, tackling the budget deficit, regulating Wall Street and reforming immigration.

But in his partial defense, consider the weight he carries every day as he receives myriad reports on international unrest and terror threats. Practically every day, he’s making decisions that could affect the lives of Americans and others.

This is not the theoretical work of an academic or the legal work of an attorney. Nor is it the troop-rallying work of a community organizer or politician. No, this is the hardest and most important work of a commander in chief.

We think the Guantanamo Bay prison should be closed, drone strikes should be more discriminate and the National Security Agency surveillance program should be curtailed. But this is easy for us to say. We are not sitting in on the daily briefings during which the president hears about all the ominous stuff that’s happening around us — things we rarely hear about.

It’s the president’s primary duty to keep us safe. What President Obama and his predecessors have tried to do is balance that duty against the constitutional liberties and historical precedents that have made America the world champion of democracy and justice.

It’s a tough task, and the Obama administration’s record in this regard is currently a subject of heated debate. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin is skeptical of security officials who contend the surveillance program has prevented terrorist acts. Iowa Rep. Tom Latham wonders whether we should “trust the government to wield this kind of capability to access such a vast amount of information on Americans without violating our rights.”

But Iowa State University political science professor Steffen Schmidt offered the most mature perspective on the surveillance issue in a column last week in the Tribune. Noting that surveillance, security checks and other such law-enforcement tactics have been commonplace for many years, he wrote:

“If you ask 100 people at the mall if they worry about cell phone conversations being monitored to prevent terrorist attacks, I guarantee all of them will say, ‘No, I want to be safe.’”

Even if not every single one of the 100 surveyed mall denizens dismissed the concern, Schmidt is right that people almost always will choose safety over privacy.

In any case, for the foreseeable future, we need to look at the presidency differently. Gone are the days when a U.S. president can spend most of his time debating legislation with senators and congressmen. Policy wonkery is no longer a job requirement. Knowledge of the world is paramount. In this post-9/11 world, all the old assumptions must be thrown out.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.